[ICX]

"In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department." ...which won't stop Democrats from blaming this on Bush.

[cardinal4]

Whats Rosie Odonell going to do come tax time?

[IncPen]

Ah, liberalism... all things to all people....

[FBD]

"...the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns..."

Heh, Heh, heh! All thanks to the Sinkmeister...who woulda thought!

Hmmmm. I wonder if libs will now want to abolish their favorite intimidation tool.

[2banana]

HEY - MAKE THEM PAY THE MARRIAGE PENALTY!!!

[MarMema]

Too amusing.

[ridesthemiles]

This has been one of my questions from the beginning.
I also want to know what impacts the same sex marriage would have for employers. Should employers have to provide health benefits for a groups of people who are the highest risk for AIDS? Wouldn[t that action all but bankrupt small employers with premiums they can't afford?
The spector of Same Sex Marriages casts a large shadow, IMHO.

[Cicero]

If we made them pay the marriage penalty, we'd soon have the entire press on our side to eliminate it.

[Charlotte Corday]

I suppose that it's too much to hope that this would now put the gay community and its allies on the side of a flat tax or NRST.

[MeekOneGOP]

IRS: "NO - ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE"

Excerpt:

In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department.

They even went as far as to say that even if a state recognizes such unions - that "recognition serves no effect for purposes under federal law".

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

Those folks in "Faggachusetts" are gonna be sorely disappointed.

[Charlespg]

well at lest there is some hope for things

[kcvl]

ROFLOL!

The Clinton Legacy that just keeps on giving.

[msdrby]

well, well, well. For once the IRS does something other than take our money.

*snicker*

[upchuck]

YES!

[Cindy]

Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6

CWFA.org - CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: "TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT THE MARRIAGE AFFIRMATION AND PROTECTION AMENDMENT" (Read More...)

International Healing Foundation

[DannyTN]

Because I'm the Tax Man

(As opposed to the tax fairy)

[3catsanadog]

Never thought I'd see the day when I agree with the IRS.